INTRO:*College Loan case may get a break from High
Court* - Mark Warren Tetzlaff, who is partially disabled, is seeking bankruptcy of his college loan, since he is unable to work.
Famous 'Gay Marriage' attorney,
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier has has taken Tetzlaff's case, but has stalled and apparently
declined to seek rehearing. Register
editor, Gordon W. Watts, who self-identifies as Conservative, is not asking the High Court for outright loan forgiveness in his request to intervene.
Instead, he is asking merely that the same standard consumer protections as Credit Card holder (and the “über-rich”) have also be returned to Student
Loans, as in the past. Watts, who is himself under financial duress, has asked the Court to intervene as a matter of right, since he is affected, and his
own rights aren't represented in this case. Watts has pulled out all the stops and filed a
professionally-done brief. In case The Court claims his filing is late, he
has documentation of delivery to a commercial carrier in a
timely fashion. Update: Watts used Hallward-Driemeier's old address & made a couple of odd 'Scrivener's Errors' (typos), invoking Rule 201(c)(2),
Fed.R.Civ.P., to give The Court judicial notice. Short, to-the-point, and a good read -
with proof of delivery.
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F and
use the find bar.

A couple of small, human errors made - fixed. Short, 3-page document. Brief and to the point, a good read.

Also, I spoke with court clerk, Erik Fossum, and I asked him if the court received my filings. He confirmed that both my filings (those from Fri.2-5-16 and
Mon.2-8-16) were safely received and filed. However, he said that the court was still waiting to see if the petitioner was going to file a petition for
rehearing before reviewing my filings. Not sure why this is, but I guess it is prudent for the court to be up-to-speed on the case before considering new
filings in the case. ~Editor

Letter in *.jpg (Jay Peg image) format --
Letter in *.pdf ('PDF' Portable Document Format) -- Hon. Erik Fossum,
Associate Clerk, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, takes issue with 2 perceived problems: (#1) My filing was allegedly on the 6th (not the 5th) and thus late;
(#2) Even if I were timely, since the case was closed, he alleges that Intervention is impossible in a 'closed' case; (#3) Although he doesn't call me
on it, I discovered a missing required statement of compliance, and I treated his letter as if he had indeed called me on it. (I gave him credit here.)
Thus, I invoked the requisite rule and make the required correction, and resubmitted my filings in a timely manner.

Pursuant to my telephone conversation with the clerk assigned to my case, who did not object, I file a response to the ruling of The
Court:

'SUMMARY' of the ARGUMENT
((1)) My pleading was filed on the 5th, not the 6th, as Clerk Fossum alleges, so it is timely.
((2)) With all due respect, Clerk Fossum misreads current case-law on Intervention.
((3)) I shall include Instanter a Rule 44.2 affirmation in order to comply with the rules.
Additionally, besides 'traditional' arguments made, I also "play hardball," and politely, but firmly, inform The Court that a wrong decision will come back
to bite them with unnecessary (and painfully headache) paperwork. (This may seem rude, but I view it as an 'insurance policy' to hedge my bets - and ensure
that I get a fair hearing in court. If I get a fair hearing, I feel that I will win on all counts.) I did not even mention possible bad press that may
ensue, but that, too, is another insurance policy - depending on the news media's attitude and diligence, here. ~Editor, Gordon W. Watts

I called him up by phone, and I asked him what gives: Federal case law was on my side both regarding Intervention as well as Joinder. He responded &
answered that that the Intervention case law was from a Federal Appeals Court, and thus not legally binding upon the U.S. Supreme Court. I replied that
this may be true, but:

(#1) Since the U.S. Supreme Court case law on Intervention at any time was silent, my holding was persuasive, and hinted that the court should take up
my case, since this was a gray area of case law (and rule one way or the other to clear things up).

(#2) Moreover, I pointed out that the case law allowing Joinder under F.R.Civ.P. 21 is even broader than Permissive Intervention under R.24(b). Rule 21
provides a court may join parties to an action “[o]n motion [of any party] or on its own…at
any time [and] on just terms.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21; Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989)
(noting the policies behind R.21 apply to appellate courts). Indeed, The U.S. Supreme Court frequently exercises its authority to add similarly-situated
parties to avoid potential mootness or other jurisdictional problems where doing so entails no prejudice to parties, and requiring the movant “to start
over in the District Court would entail needless waste and run[] counter to effective judicial administration.” Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S.
415, 417 (1952).

*** What part of “at any time” does The Court not
understand!? ***

I pointed out that since that Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989) was U.S. Supreme Court case law (and very current
to boot), that it was binding upon his court to grant me PDP (Procedural Due Process). Thus, while the Sup. Ct. is a court of "discretionary" jurisdiction,
and thus may say "no" on the merits without violating SDP (Sustentative Due Process), nonetheless, it was the clerk's 'ministerial duty' (a legal term,
which is plain in its meaning to most non-lawyers) to file my paperwork.

Clerk Atkins sympathised with my financial poverty and the associated FedEx costs shipping my filings back and forth. I thanked him for being considerate,
and asked him if, in light of binding Federal case law on this point, whether he would indeed file my paperwork. He replied to the effect that he would
think about it and get back with me - and that if I had any questions, to direct them at him, and not his clerks, apparently for the sake of brevity and
judicial efficiency. I am thinking about filing a "Motion to allow filing nisi Clarification contra," and I'm sure that
he would allow me to do so, but I plan to call him and, possibly, Chief Clerk Scott S. Harris, and speak with them first, before throwing any more money
down the FedEx drain. ~~Editor, Gordon W. watts

The translation of that motion, above, from the Latin roots means, in plain English: In other words, this motion asks The Court to allow the
timely-submitted Intervention/Joinder motion (and the enclosed errata relating to the certificate of service and misc. scrivener's
errors) to be filed by The Clerk, “unless 'contra' Clarification” can be given by the court as to why it would be OK to disregard current
and applicable case law. If the court files my paperwork, and I'm granted either Intervention and/or Joinder, I would automatically have legal standing,
as a co-petitioner, to seek rehearing. Since my paperwork was all filed on time, it would be accepted as timely (and not late) should the court follow its
own rules.

PS: I do not envy Mr. Atkins or his colleagues: No matter what they do, they will anger one side or the other, as there are "loud voices" on both sides
--not even counting the news media who are circling like a Vulture: There have been no less than two (2) explicit press inquiries, and many more
news media who are silently watching, and visiting this page, as my web trackers have indicated. Click the 'planet-like' icon in the top left of any
of The Register's pages to verify page-tracker data. ~Editor

I'm also asking the court to expand page limitations, since this is a complex matter. Lastly, I'm pushing my luck and asking for Oral Arguments - in spite
of the recent rule change prohibiting "non-lawyers" from oral arguments before the High Court. (In SEC v Sloan, 436 U.S. 103,
non-lawyer Samuel H. Sloan had oral arguments before the high court, and successfully argued that the SEC, in issuing successive 10-day suspensions, abused
its power, and Sloan won 9-0. That 1978 case was the last time a "non-lawyer" orally argued before the high court.) While the court is not likely to grant
me oral arguments (and really doesn't need such to fully review it), oral arguments can be helpful in difficult cases (as is this one), and moreover, this
shows the court that I'm serious about prosecuting my case.

As you can see, "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on [Monday] March 21, 2016 at 11:06 am in WASHINGTON, DC 20431 to J KOUROS,"
in other words, "John Kouros," apparently a mail-room employee. OK, now it's time to effect e-service, optional, but a courtesy to the court
and parties: Not only for their convenience, but let's say The Court decides to make this case a 'High Profile' case? They would need electronic
copies of the briefs to post on their website - like they did with the recent 'Gay Marriage' cases - for example; well, here they are in my email to the
court and counsel. ~Editor

“An electronic version of every brief on the merits shall be transmitted to the Clerk of Court and to opposing counsel of record at the
time the brief is filed in accordance with guidelines established by the Clerk. The electronic transmission requirement is in addition to the requirement
that booklet-format briefs be timely filed.” (Rule 25.9, Briefs on the Merits: Number of Copies and Time to File)

An electronic version of the document shall also be transmitted to all other parties at the time of filing or reasonably contemporaneous therewith, unless
the party filing the document is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis or the electronic service address of the party being served is
unknown and not identifiable through reasonable efforts. (Rule 29.3, Filing and Service of Documents; Special Notifications; Corporate Listing)

Commentary: As you can see, this does not apply to me: Not only am I not at the merits stage, but moreover, I'm proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis. However, I am e-serving the court and counsel of record for 4 reasons:

(1) As a professional courtesy;
(2) In case the court makes this a high-profile case, they would be better off with an electronic version of my brief (instead of a scanned in image)
so they could post it online -like they did with Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (the famous gay marriage case) -and like they
traditionallydo with all high-profile cases;
(3) I had some comments to offer guidance and clarification in light of the repeated screw-ups and mistakes that The Court and its clerks have made
in this case. (Caveat: The clerks usually do an excellent job and file pleadings, putting these matters before the Justices, who actually do
read every brief themselves, or, at least, are 'briefed' on it by thier law clerks.) In light of the fact that the clerks are trying to do their job,
I did my best to "meet them half-way," and make their job easier; and, lastly:
(4) Since I expect the news media to review my online docket, here, I feel an obligation to keep them in the loop, too: This is a
good read, I assure you.

Mr. Atkins, I am in receipt of your letter to me, dated March 11, 2016, in the above-styled case. Thank you for speaking with me on the phone about our
misunderstanding here - and thank you for being honest enough to admit that you don't know what to make of Newman-Green, Inc.
v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 and other current (and not overturned) Federal case law from the US Supreme Court all of which
disagree with your claims that I may 'intervene' or 'join' a lawsuit at any stage of the game.

Since we last spoke, I called, wrote, and/or spoke with probably 25 or 50 attorneys barred in the US Supreme Court to try and "get a grip" on this seeming
contradiction... {{redacted for length - click on link to see whole email - Editor}}

STATEMENT from Gordon W. Watts:
“The ability to file bankruptcies is the 'Economic Second Amendment,' and when colleges knew student loans were
almost impossible to discharge in bankruptcy (due to the Brunner test), the colleges and lenders knew student borrowers of college loans were
unable to defend themselves—and both parties engaged in Predatory Lending, victimising the helpless & defenseless college student borrowers with
soaring & skyrocketing tuition—price-gouging them, like one shoots 'fish in a barrel'.
For this reason, (conservative) supporters of the Second Amendment should not deny college students. Likewise,
(liberal) supporters of helpless college students should be in agreement that student borrowers need the same protections as ALL OTHER
borrowers—including Credit Card users and the “über-rich,” all of whom can obtain bankruptcy discharge.”
There are numerous other moral, legal, practical, and Constitutional problems with the current law, justifying
it be struck and found Unconstitutional, too numerous to mention here, but addressed in my court brief:
Tetzlaff-Intervention-GordonWayneWatts.pdf

PETITIONS:
* The 'Million Signature' petition to "Support Student Loan
Forgiveness,"(Note: This editor, Gordon W. Watts, is conservative and does not seek 100%-total Loan Forgiveness, but MANY civil & criminal
torts (injuries) were committed against helpless victims, and that include victims of an illegal monopoly in higher-ed, and other victims of sub-prime and
predatory lending, and student borrowers whose college loans either had their Loan Contract terms illegally changed after the fact and/or were lied
to and/or kept in the dark by vague loan contract terms)
* "Requesting cosponsors
for HR 3451: The Student Loan Bankruptcy Parity Act of 2015," (Editor's Note: Since the current U.S. Bankruptcy Law violates the U.S.
CONSTITUTION's uniformity clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4, this petition is on solid legal grounds)

(Wed. 17 Feb. 2016, BREAKING)Higher Education ; Courts *Texas man arrested for not paying student loan *
Yesterday, CNNreported that "A Texas man was arrested
by U.S. Marshals last week for not paying his $1,500 federal student loan -- for 29 years." There were conflicting reports-with The Houston
Chroniclenow
reporting that "US Marshals say man wasn't just arrested because he didn't pay student loans." The Register did investigative
reporting to get to the bottom of this. While The Chronicle claims that the arrest wasn't just for nonpayment, but also because
"A federal judge then issued a warrant for Aker's arrest for failing to appear at a Dec. 14, 2012, hearing," nonetheless, a closer review finds
that Paul Aker, the recipient of the college loan "went inside to get my gun because I didn't know who these guys were," as reported by CNNMoney.
Aker also told CNNMoney that he doesn't remember having a conversation with US Marshalls, who alleged they called him first. Aker further said he
hasn't received any notification about the outstanding loan "in a long time." The Register supports the Rule of Law, and doesn't deny Courts may
issue bench warrants for failure to appear, yet this seems, in our judgment, to be extreme - even more-so in light of the Constitutional problems with the
underlying loan. (See our previous coverage of the Constitutional challenge to these laws, in our Sun. 14 Feb. 2016, UPDATES, below.)